On The Necessity Of War

In any discussion on the necessity of war, we must begin with a basic, fundamental question:

Is there ever any practical and moral reason for war?

That is a simple yes or no question, but it is vital to the subject, and it must be answered as a beginning point
to further discussion regarding the necessity of war. And if the
answer is no, then, there is no point in any further discussion.

For if the answer to that question is no, then we
never should have fought any war in our past, and if we had never fought
any war in our past, then we would not exist, as a nation or as a
people, in anything like the condition in which we find ourselves today.

I submit that the answer to the question is yes, because there are wars in our past that would have been unthinkable to have lost. Unacceptable is not a strong enough word. Absolutely unacceptable is not a strong enough term.

Our willful actions and our free-will
decisions are ideally guided by our individual consciences and our
collective common ethos. Each of which, when properly formed, stem from
our deeply held religious sense of right and wrong, our sense of good
justice, and our sense of love of (and responsibility for) our neighbor.
And they sometimes reinforce our natural tendency to want to come to
the aid of someone relatively small and weak who is being picked on by
someone bigger and stronger.

The Necessity of War at the Individual Level

This applies at the individual level as
well as at the national and international levels. We all tend to want
to defend a woman against a man, a small child against older children, a
little guy against a big guy, an individual against a gang, almost
anyone against a recognized bully. It gets increasingly serious as the
identity of the person being shoved around moves farther into our
personal circle of acquaintances, friends and actual family members.

The very minute you become the
victim of the bully, the principle of the necessity of war immediately
makes itself known to you. We can all walk away from an insult, even
accompanied by a shove or jostle. But when you are assaulted, or your
home is invaded, or your family members are imperiled, it’s pretty
unlikely you will take time to get out the Catechism to read up on the
Just War doctrine. You will act, or you will suffer the consequences of
not acting.

Once the fury is unleashed, rational
thinking tends to take a back seat. We are called to moderate our
response to the minimum necessary; in other words, we are not free to
just whale the tar out of someone, perhaps even maiming or killing him,
once we are morally justified to fight. Once the blood is up and the
adrenalin is pumping, it can be very hard to remember that, or even
think of it. And that is all the more reason to try, in the first
place, to avoid physical conflict almost at all costs. Once you
start down the trail of violence, it is almost unpredictable where it
will end. That’s why reason is supposed to rule among reasonable men.

Still, it is good to keep in mind that we are not all reasonable men. The reason for the very existence of the term Law Enforcement
rests in the fact that there are always those among us who must be
forced to live within the constraints of the civil law, or be removed
from among us. Major and minor criminals – who, by definition, disobey
laws – are everywhere in society.

The Necessity of War at the Political Level

War is a purely political thing,
usually fought between different peoples, sometimes fought by forces
within the same people over who is to be ruler. Nevertheless, the
necessity of war is always a political decision, usually made by the
aggressor party first. Someone convinced the others of the necessity of
war, and the war commenced. Whoever was attacked usually had no
choice in the matter, but sometimes they were given a choice, and it
usually became a political decision in that camp, too.

Nations with borders are a relatively
new thing, historically speaking. In general, nations with borders have
had a civilizing influence on man. The first feudal properties, be
they kingdoms or some sort of noble domains, were disputed, settled and
re-settled between nobility, with a decreasing necessity of war over
time. That’s not to say they didn’t go to war with each other, but that
the necessity of war decreased.

The main people they fought wars
against were the non-nation nomads and various roving barbarian gangs.
This forced the kingdom-nations into military alliances and firmed up
the general sense of borders and sovereign property.

Attila the Hun had no nation or
national affinity; neither did the Vandals, the Goths, the Visigoths,
the Turks, or many others among the marauding hordes who swept across
Europe making war for the sole purpose of conquest, pillage, riches and
power. The absolute necessity of war was crystal clear to the
inhabitants of any castle or fortified city that found itself in the
path of any one of the many marauding bands.

We should not be terribly surprised
that our current enemies in our Global War On Terror do not represent
any particular nation. Indeed, in their ultimate ideology, they oppose
the existence of all nations, and seek to create a one-world state in
submission to Islam, by violence if necessary. Islam has no real
nationality. Nevertheless, Islam is a very real major political force
in the world. Even competing and warring groups within Islam – the
Sunni and the Shia, for example – share the same ultimate ideological
goal, that being the Ummah, the end of all competing religions
and the end of all competing nations, and the formation of the idealized
one Islamic world state. This is no secret; it is what orthodox,
main-stream Islam teaches its disciples.

In a similar manner, Marxism knows no nationality, is
merely an ideology, and represents a similar danger to sovereign
nations, and to the very idea of sovereignty itself. The whole Marxist,
Utopian, absolutely perfect, Worldly Heaven promised to millions by International Communism, fatally flawed and impossible though it may be, still infects so-called intellectual
thought everywhere on Earth. The shear stupidity of the notion matters
not one whit. You will still find a majority of university professors
who quote Marx as a great social thinker, even a genius. Go figure.

The danger here is that the died-in-the-wool Marxists among us will seldom if ever publicly recognize any necessity of war. Any
war. If you look at how the international variant of Marxism got its
big foothold in Europe, and its big foothold in Asia, you see that
Internationalism (Bolshevism; Socialism; Communism; whatever you choose
to call it) took advantage of nation-tearing wars to fight, not for the
nation, but for Marxism. The Red forces in Russia did not fight
for Russia, but for Communism. The Red forces in China did not fight
for China, but for Communism.

Communism succeeded only when the
nation being revolted against was already under extreme duress fighting a
war of survival against a foreign invader. But then, to the
International Marxist, there is no such thing as a foreigner. And, if
the populace is not ready or willing to revolt against the government,
then the Marxist citizens hope for some sort of desperate war. They will not publicly admit to any necessity of war, even when the invader is at the door. They want war; they just won’t say it out loud. War is only an opportunity for them; a means to an end.

In all of history, no so-called Communist
Revolution ever succeeded with popular support of the people. If it
hadn’t been for World War I, the Russian Revolution would not have
succeeded. If it hadn’t been for World War II, the Chinese Revolution
would not have succeeded. They were not popular revolutions at all, but
armed takeovers. Even in Cuba, Castro never even announced his
Communism until after Batista and his gangsters were defeated. The new
Communism of Cuba was as much a surprise to the Cuban people as it was
to the rest of the world. So Marxism, in truth, recognizes the
necessity of war as the means to an end.

However, American Marxists will always oppose any public
notion of the necessity of war. Lefties will always be leading the
charge to de-militarize us, cut defense spending, emasculate the
military and convince the populace of the evil of the military and of
anything like national war-readiness. They see it as an important part
of their job.

Curiously, these are the same people who take the most extreme public umbrage at any suggestion that they might in any way be unpatriotic. And, they are also the ones who denigrate all real patriotism as jingoism.

The Church on the Necessity of War.

We know from Eccles. 3:3 that there is
“a time to kill.” At many, many different places in the Old Testament
God Himself sent Israel into battle. But then, Christ came, to be known
for all time as the Prince Of Peace. He said “blessed are the
peacemakers” in Matt. 5:9. He said “if anyone strikes you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also” in Matt. 5:39. If He epitomized the
image of the peaceful man then how are we to understand his
warning in Luke 22:36 where He tells His Apostles “let him who has no
sword sell his mantle and buy one” ? Is this not a pretty clear
acknowledgement by Jesus Christ of a legitimate use of force?

The short answer is yes, it is.

The just goal of war is peace. When
someone challenges or eliminates peace, war must be waged to the degree
necessary to restore the peace. At the lowest level, that is the reason
for the existence of the term Law Enforcement. The aim of civil law is to provide civil order, which is to say, peace.

Paul told us that the civil government –
the state – “does not bear the sword in vain” and “is the servant of
God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer.” In Luke 3:14 we see John
the Baptist acknowledging that Roman soldiers entitlement to their
wages, and to their jobs, which involved keeping the Pax Romana, or the
Peace of Rome, by force when necessary.

Now the necessity of war was not
something the early Christians concerned themselves with in any serious
way, because they were not only a minority but an oppressed minority, for multiple centuries. They were certainly not capable of waging war on anyone, so it was a moot point.

In St Augustine’s era, around 400 AD,
more attention was devoted to the necessity of war; St. Augustine
provided one, which has come to be known famously as the Just War
doctrine. While it’s been somewhat refined over the centuries, the
essence of it remains pretty much as he wrote it.

The Church clearly recognizes the
necessity of war, however distasteful that may be. Here’s what the
Catechism of the Catholic Church says about Just War:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force
require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it
subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same
time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver
than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction
weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs
to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the
common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to
impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces
are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out
their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the
nation and the maintenance of peace.107

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those
who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are
nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent
validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war
has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit
between the warring parties."109

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its
universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such
actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them
out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority
must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders
that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of
whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God
and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger
of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who
possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or
chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

Paragraph 2309 shows that the necessity of war is
subject to strict conditions to be legitimate. The “damage inflicted”
by the aggressor must be lasting, grave and certain. Islam met that
requirement in spades, multiple times. The “serious prospect of
success” cannot and does not translate to anything close to certainty.
War is the most de-stabilizing and uncertain activity of social
orders. Indeed, social order leaves the arena when war enters. In the
practical world, this “serious prospect” can only be interpreted to be
“reasonable expectation,” or even “hope for survival.” However, even
grave necessity of war does not permit the production of evils graver
than the evil to be eliminated.

But, what about the principle of the preemptive strike
when it is known ahead of time what the enemy is about to do? Israel
has made use of this principle; is she now to be condemned for it,
because the necessity of war had not been properly established by
“damage inflicted” by the enemy? No. Recognition of a pending attack
through intelligence or third party nations establishes the necessity of
war, particularly when national survival is at stake.

Today, with the kinds of massively
destructive weapons available to enemies who do not wear uniforms or
necessarily even represent nations, necessity of war moves us into a new
realm. We need to seek out, infiltrate, spy and do all sorts of
normally distasteful things to even identify and find the enemy
“soldiers” who hide among us, and among our allies. We should be
thankful that they seem to have chosen to gather to fight us in Iraq,
where we can deal with lots of them at the same time and in the same
place.

In 2310 we see that the necessity of
war imposes upon public authorities the duty to impose military
obligations on the citizenry, and a recognition of the need for citizen
service to country.

2311 says that conscientious objection
needs to be allowed; we don’t need to draft the Amish. Necessity of war
does not mean that everyone must contribute to the cause militarily.
The remaining paragraphs point to the need for us to remain human; to
retain the civilizing rules of our ethos, even in the face of savage
barbarity. America, I would argue, has done a better job of that than
any other nation on Earth. Our typical treatment of POWs, civilian
populations and conquered nations is exemplary.

The only stain on our national honor involves the
carpet bombing of cities like Dresden, which killed so many thousands of
civilian non-combatants. Apparently, Western leadership believed that
we could destroy the will of the people to resist, and perhaps we could; but it raises the question of how we came to think that we were waging war against the people
instead of the armies and navies and air forces. And perhaps war
materials factories and fuel supplies. Actually, I think Hitler and the
allied leadership were sort of publicly dueling, seeing how many of
each other’s citizens they could kill. Hopefully we will never get
sucked into anything like that again. A valid necessity of war does not
grant an unlimited license to annihilate populations.

Regarding our use of the atom bomb in
WW II, we need to pause and remember what brought about the necessity of
war in that instance. It was Japanese military conquest, pure and
simple, accompanied by the worst order of atrocity, easily among the
most gruesome in recorded history. And, of course, there was the sneak
attack on Pearl Harbor.

I have mixed emotions regarding
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some say those were only civilian populations;
others say, while granting that they were civilian population centers,
that they were major military war materials and ship-building and port
facilities, and thus the only major military targets worthy of
such massively destructive weapons. I suppose we could have dropped one
on a boat somewhere. I don’t know what other targets might have been
available, but I do know that those two brought the war to an end. The
estimates of how many American and allied lives would have been
“expended” to take the final Japanese Islands were running into the millions.

It is horrible that so many innocents died
in those two cities, but in the final analysis, those two bombs ended
the war. It may be argued that Japan is better off now, even after
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, than she would have been if they had not been
atom-bombed. Japan would have been even more ravaged and destroyed, with potentially nothing left
of their old culture. The rest of the world could not and would not
any longer tolerate Japanese imperial military conquest and bestial
atrocity, as exemplified by Bata an, Nan King and so many other places.
It simply had to be stopped, and the sooner the better.

I’m not going to second-guess the
generals on that at this late date. I’ll simply say a prayer for the
innocents, and just move on. The war is over, and Japan has become a
peaceful nation and a peaceful people.

Today I don’t think anyone could argue that any
nation spent more time, money and attention on the development of
collateral-damage reduction, in the form of so-called smart weaponry
than the USA. Only a fundamentally decent people would have any
interest in developing a bomb or missile that could take out a military
target right in among a native population, while injuring as few as
possible or even none of the non-combatants. Islam isn’t doing that sort of thing. Quite the opposite. Today, they are making suicide-vests in toddler sizes.

Necessity of War and Peace Among Nations.

Earlier we saw some Scriptural support
for state police as peace keepers among the populace. What about
keeping peace between nations? Looking back through history we see that
on occasion an Attila would sally forth, and the world would tremble until someone
able to do so took to the field after the guy. It’s no different
today. This is where the most vehement arguments arise regarding the
necessity of war. The question is:

Should we go to war when someone else is attacked?

So, does a necessity of war exist for us when another
nation is in military distress. And the answer is, it depends. Of
course if the other nation is an ally, we might have a mutual defense
treaty, as among NATO nations. But, the other nation might not be a NATO member, or an ally with a treaty.

The whole reason for our “Cold War”
with the old Soviet Union hinged on this question regarding the
necessity of war. Earlier I said that only in Russia and in China did
the so-called Communist Revolutions take hold, and there only because
the resources and military might of the government was divided. Russia
was at war with Germany, and China was at war with Japan, at the same
time the Reds were doing their big takeover thing.

Every other nation that was to fall
under Communism did so only after having been overrun by Russian
military. They drove the Germans out, and then they stayed, and
took charge. There were no revolutions in any of those countries; they
were simply conquered or militarily annexed, and they had nothing
whatsoever to say about it. We left the lands we drove the Germans out
of, but the Russians didn’t. And they sought and got more.
Communism, as a world-conquest seeking ideology, was on the move, in
Africa, in South and Central America and in Asia. Could this sort of
imperial expansionism create a sense of the necessity of war in the
minds of thinking men?

Well, there seemed to be a necessity of
war mentality surrounding the quite obvious International Communist
expansion that got us into Korea, and then Vietnam. If you see someone
loose in the world whose publicly announced intention is to take over the world and eliminate all other forms of government, steadily gaining ground,
does that create a necessity of war? To me, it is little different
from another Attila, or another horde of Turks loose in the world. If
someone doesn’t stop them somewhere, eventually they’ll kill or conquer
everyone.

The only reason the necessity of war
against Communism did not resonate in every breast in America was
because of the intellectual viral infection of Marxism that was racing
like wildfire through the intelligentsia. On the campus, in the studio,
in the news room, there was and could be no necessity of war with
Communism, ever.

America has been and will be much maligned for taking
on the role of international peace keeper. But, if we didn’t do it,
who would? The UN? Don’t make me laugh. In plain, simple fact, there
is no other nation available that is powerful enough to do it, and
honorable enough to not take advantage of the situation by building an
empire or something similar. Historically, we leave free nations with
their own representative governments in our wake. No one else does that. And our Leftists want us to stop doing that. And so does Islam.

Necessity of War and American Politics.

Nothing is more serious and nothing is
more dangerous than going to war. Nothing is more destabilizing among
nations, nothing is more confusing and nothing generates so much
uncertainty about the future.

Here is where the big difference is:

The leader of the nation with a Representative Government
answers to his people for his actions, shares a common guiding ethos
with the majority of them, and is honor-bound to represent them.

The leader of the nations with an Un-representative Government
answers to no one, makes his own rules, and the people may be damned.
He frequently controls even the information available to the people, or
did right up until the internet exploded onto the scene.

This means that war, on the
representative-government side of the street, becomes a political hot
potato. On the other side, of course, the dictator answers to no one.
Nobody ever voted for Ho Chi Minh, and no citizen ever opposed him and
lived. But everybody rained on President Johnson’s parade, and
eventually even broke his heart, and his spirit, and his Presidency.
The war was lost politically, of all things.

Necessity of War and Representative Government.

We have established that the decision
for war is the most serious decision that can be made. All the more
reason we should be very careful in the selection of our leaders. Once
they are in office, we the people need to be able to trust them to be able to make that decision, not based on any votes, not based on any popularity, but on whether the decision is right, or wrong.
Once the necessity of war has been established, once our forces,
however limited, have been committed, everybody other than the generals
needs to back up two steps and shut up. That includes Senators and
Congressmen, Justices and judges, even Presidents, though to a smaller
degree. Because it has become a military matter, and war is not the proper domain of civilians.

No American trooper should ever go into
harm’s way only to have the rug pulled out from under him by any act of
congress, or any purely politically motivated decision, or any street
demonstrations or any public tantrums by any Leftie celebrocrats. When
it’s time to take a hill, the marines don’t take a vote on it. They do
it. Once they’ve been committed, every single one of the rest of us is
honor bound and duty bound to support them in every way we can.
Recognizing the Lefties have no honor and no sense of national duty, the
rest of us need to do more than required, to take up the slack and to override the anti-American efforts of the Left.

So, once we’re at war, the time for
popularity polls is over. It doesn’t matter one iota if a lot of us
disagree with the necessity of war. It doesn’t even matter if all
of us disagree with the necessity of war. It’s too late. Once we’re
in a war, the only goal needs to be to win it. Political battles can be
fought later, but American troops always need the guaranteed and
completely uninterrupted support of the nation that sent them there.
The blood of the American fighting man is the very life-blood of the
whole principle of Representative Government.

Which the Lefties hate, as they seek to
grow the government, as they migrate power from the people to the
government, and even as they pretend to be American patriots. Most of
us don’t know it yet, but this is only one very small phase of the war
we’ve begun to fight. At stake, believe it or not, is our national
existence. And as we go, so will the world go.

Pray for the President, that he might have wisdom.

Pray for our troops, that they might have perseverance.

Pray for our nation, that we might return to our guiding ethos.

=====

Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click a footnote link to see the gory details.)

Comments

'We all tend to want to defend a woman against a man, a small child
against older children, a little guy against a big guy, an individual
against a gang, almost anyone against a recognized bully.'

Once again, your basic premise is flawed. These are all
examples of self-defense being necessary, and you are taking that to
mean all war is necessary.

That is easily proved wrong: was it necessary for the
man to attack the woman, the older child to attack the younger, or the
gang to attack the individual?

'But, what about the principle of the preemptive strike
when it is known ahead of time what the enemy is about to do? Israel
has made use of this principle; is she now to be condemned for it,
because the necessity of war had not been properly established by
“damage inflicted” by the enemy? No. Recognition of a pending attack
through intelligence or third party nations establishes the necessity of
war, particularly when national survival is at stake.'

Again, you make an assertion and don't bother to support it. Let me introduce you to Article 2 of the UNC:

"All Members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

In simple terms, that says "don't attack other countries". Now let me introduce you Article 51 of the UNC:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the
inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed
attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security
Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace
and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of
self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and
shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the
Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such
action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore
international peace and security."

That say "but you can defend yourself IF ARMED ATTACK OCCURS." Since
it states explicitly that there must be an armed attack to trigger the
right to self-defense, then pre-emptive strikes or anticipatory
self-defense or whatever the latest euphemism for 'attack' is, are
illegal.

Saying otherwise is just war-mongers making excuses for aggression.

if you like wars Vic, just grow some balls and say so.
Trying to say attacking others is legal, and that Jesus liked wars, and
that the church likes wars just makes you look ridiculous.

Justifying wars on religious grounds also puts you on
the same level as militant Islamists who do exactly the same thing. Take
the "catholic' out of your URL - you are a disgrace to both Catholicism
and Christianity.

Date: Sat Dec 12 08:33:56 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Ms. Roaring Fish:

I’m sorry that you are so upset; you seem to have gotten
your panties all bunched up in a knot. But please don’t put words in my
mouth. I never said that all war is necessary. I don’t like war.
Been there, done that. Nobody I know who has ever been in any war likes
war.

You seem to think that it would be wrong to protect a
child, woman, etc., because they should not have been attacked by
whoever the attacker was. Well then, perhaps the appropriate action
would be to tap the attacker on the shoulder and say, pardon me, but you
shouldn’t be doing that, and that would resolve the situation, and
everybody would be happy. You’re just nuts.

Regarding the preemptive strike, the last organization
any free man should pay any attention to is the UN. If anyone openly
threatens me with grave harm, by that mere act, they place themselves in
immediate grave danger. Period. Only a fool like you would stand idly
around and await the grave harm to occur first, before acting. How
impractical and stupid can you get?

America should drop out of the UN, or at least stop
funding it. America is a nation of laws and not of men. We are subject
to our Constitution, and we will have no foreign authority that is not
accountable to us and not subject to our Constitution super-imposed over
our Constitution and over us. Our government represents us, it does
not rule us. Yet. Obamunism is working to change all that, but just
watch and see what happens in the next and following American elections.
We will not stand for it.

If Israel just stands around with her thumb up her butt
and awaits nuclear annihilation from Iran before striking Iranian
nuclear facilities, then the current Israeli government is just plain
stupid, perhaps even as dumb as you. The notion of holding out until
after a murderous attack represents a suicidal level of stupidity.

Your pro-Marxist comments after the Definition of Marxism page and the Refuting Marxism
page reveal your moral grounding, or lack of it. I therefore
understand where you’re coming from when you criticize my faith, or how
you think I represent it.

Your wonderful Marxian philosophy not only opposes
belief in God, but attacks religious faith and practice of religion. To
quote your favorite “philosopher”:

”Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress
and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the
oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the
spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The
abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is
required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion
about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs
illusions.Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.“

So we see that your moral grounding is not only alien but antagonistic
to the moral grounding of the overwhelming majority population of the
whole world. Morality comes out of religion, not out of government.
The guiding ethos of America is the Judeo-Christian Ethos of Western Civilization. That is what gives our lives purpose, meaning and direction.

On the other hand, your personal guiding ethos that gives your life purpose, meaning and direction is the ethos of
BMDFP10
and Karl Marx.

And, unlike my admittedly poor personal example of Catholicism and
Christianity, you are the perfect, classic example of a close disciple
of your beloved Marx.

As much as I sympathize with the Jewish position, I think that
Israel is at times way overboard. You think the Palestinians invented
bloodshed? How do you think the Jews got control of the land, by being
nice? Palestinians blowing themselves up in Jerusalem in Jewish schools
is as reprehensible as Israel bombing refugee camps in Jordan and
Ramallah. You might be unable to see this, but both Arabs and Jews have
no compulsions in being ruthless when it serves their interests. There
is no innocent party here. If you think Israel has to have our complete
and unqualified support, I beg to differ. I think Obama and Hillary
Clinton is taking a brilliant line in this issue by not offering Israel
all-out support.

Date: Sat Feb 19 12:43:01 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jerry, or Liberal Loony:

Why would you think that I think the Palestinians invented bloodshed?

The story of how the Jews got control of the land is thousands of
years old; Moses led them to it, and Joshua led them into it. You
should read it some time.

Yes, yes, Hillary and Obama are brilliant, just brilliant. Take a good look at what they are currently doing to the world.

Regards,

Vic

Friday, April 05, 2013
Converted Page to SBI! Release 3.0 BB 2.0.

Date: Wed Oct 08 2014From: Vic BiorsethComment:

Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic
Center to
Catholic American Thinker.

Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option
June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .

Regards,

Vic

Language and Tone Statement

Please note the language and tone of this monitored Website. This is not the place to just stack up vulgar
one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or
introduce any position or argument, submissions must meet our high Roman Catholic and Constitutional American standards of Truth, logical rigor and civil discourse. We will not
participate in merely trading insults, nor will we tolerate participants merely
trading insults. Participants should not be
thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to
defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a
coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t
embarrass yourself. Nonsensical, obscene, blindly & doggedly anti-Catholic, anti-American, immoral or merely insulting submissions will
not be published here. If you have something serious to contribute to
the conversation, be prepared to back it up, keep it clean, keep it civil, and it will be published. We humbly
apologize to all religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say
these things, but the Hard Left is what it always was, the New Leftist Liberals are what they are, and the Internet is what it is.

"Clickbait" advertising links are not acceptable for posting here.

If you fear intolerant Leftist repercussions, do not use your real name and do not include email or any identifying information. Elitist Culturally Marxist Pure Authoritarians cannot and will not tolerate your freedom of speech or any opposition to their rigid authoritarian, anti-equality, anti-life, anti-liberty, anti-property, hedonistic, anti-Constitution, pro-Marxist, pro-Islam, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-male, sexist, pro-homosexual, anti-heterosexual, anti-white, racist, anti-Western, anti-American, Globalist, anti-Nation, blatantly immoral, totally intolerant and bigoted point of view.

This Form cannot be submitted until the missing fields (labelled below in red) have been filled in

ADD COMMENT

Please note that all fields followed by an asterisk must be filled in.

Silence in the face of evil is speaking. "We've had enough of exhortations to be silent!
Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten
because of silence." Saint Catherine of Siena

“An
error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is
suppressed…. He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of
secret complicity.” – Pope Felix III

“Do not forget your purpose and destiny as God's creatures.
What you are in God's sight is what you are and nothing more”—Justice Clarence Thomas

"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a 'right' to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects redemption." Pope Saint John Paul the GreatDOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM

"Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men-when we can do it-is no less a sin than to encourage them." Pope St. Felix III

If a purposeful violator of the Constitution who is a sworn officer of the governemt is not a domestic enemy of America and a traitor, then
there is no such thing, and the Constitution itself is without meaning,
and America has lost its grounding and its very purpose for being. Anti-American-Court

Live Interviews

"All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics." Pope Pius V

"All the strength of Satan's reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics." Pope St. Pius X

Click the image above topublish your essay or article here,to be included among those below.

Submitted Articles andReprinted Articles

(Note: copyrights on these articles wherever present will supersede the WebSite copyright at the bottom footer of every WebPage)

Still Time To Get It Right. “Once you understand the role of energy in everything, you can begin to appreciate why there's simply nothing more important to get right. Energy is at the root of everything. If you have sufficient energy, anything is possible. But without it, everything grinds to a halt.” Chris Martenson

The Heresy of Chrislam. Those claiming that the “Allah” of Islam’s Qu’ran and Yahweh or God of both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are one and the same are missing one glaring point: GOD NEVER CONTRADICTS HIMSELF.

Never be lukewarm.Life itself demands passion.He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input. Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.

NewsletterCatholic American ThinkerFree E-zine Subscription

Email

You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you theCatholic American ThinkerNewsletterand absolutely nothing else.

"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII

"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi

Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance
may deride it, but in the end, there it is.—Winston
Churchill

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who
deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.—Ayn Rand

Atheist Genesis:

In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing.
And then nothing accidentally exploded and created everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally encountered other bits of everything and formed some new kinds of everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into self-replicating bits of everything.
And then some self-replicating bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into dinosaurs.
See?

“ … for I have sworn upon
the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind
of man.” wrote Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush in
the year of our Lord 1800. The context
involved resistance to any form of Christianity or Deism legally imposing
itself throughout the USA. We must wonder what he might say
about our current government's forced imposition of strict secularism – i.e.,
anti-theism – throughout the USA. I submit that legally enforced secularism of society, like theocracy, like Marxism,
and like Islam, is, precisely, a form of tyranny over the mind of man.Nothing good can come from the religious cleansing of Judaeo-Christian society. Government imposed secularism is just another form of theocracy.